Men's Championship Game

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

It should had been a flagrant personal foul. And I am not saying that because I am a KU fan either.

MTD, Sr.

You forgot your smiley face.

No way that was flagrant...ever. Relatively little contact as he ran by him....both at full speed. He was trying to avoid it but misjudged where the shooter was going to go. Sure it happened to topple him, but the defender didn't duck down under and take his legs out.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You forgot your smiley face.

No way that was flagrant...ever. Relatively little contact as he ran by him....both at full speed. He was trying to avoid it but misjudged where the shooter was going to go. Sure it happened to topple him, but the defender didn't duck down under and take his legs out.

The first time, and each time, I saw it, I thought that the defender did undercut the shooter with intention.

Was he just trying to cause the shooter to alter his shot? I don't think so.
Was he trying to injure the shooter? I don't think so.
They don't even do that undercut in the NBA. The defender steps away and watches because the repercussions would be enormous.

The defender angled under him and slowed. in order to be in the path. He knew exactly where the shooter was, and he knew exactly what the result was going to be.

Then why wasn't the intentional called? Because the defender made no other overt move at the shooter, because the shooter didn't get hurt and because the officials did not think the game would be better for such a call [much like the no-call on the 25' bouncy ball].

Did the defender know what he was doing ? You can take it to the bank.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by mick

The first time, and each time, I saw it, I thought that the defender did undercut the shooter with intention.

Was he just trying to cause the shooter to alter his shot? I don't think so.
Was he trying to injure the shooter? I don't think so.
They don't even do that undercut in the NBA. The defender steps away and watches because the repercussions would be enormous.

The defender angled under him and slowed. in order to be in the path. He knew exactly where the shooter was, and he knew exactly what the result was going to be.

Then why wasn't the intentional called? Because the defender made no other overt move at the shooter, because the shooter didn't get hurt and because the officials did not think the game would be better for such a call [much like the no-call on the 25' bouncy ball].

Did the defender know what he was doing ? You can take it to the bank.

Sure he tried to be in his way (isn't that defense). But it was far from flagrant. He had not intent to harm or injure or create vicious contact. He didn't bend over to submarine him. He just got in front of him.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Sure he tried to be in his way (isn't that defense). But it was far from flagrant. He had not intent to harm or injure or create vicious contact. He didn't bend over to submarine him. He just got in front of him.

Ha! I guess he did, but it would have been more sporting to be facing the opponent. Defender knew what he was doing, and so do I.

[TSU2457]

Originally Posted by mick

Ha! I guess he did, but it would have been more sporting to be facing the opponent. Defender knew what he was doing, and so do I.

I'll give you that he knew that he would run into the shooter. But at the speed of the play do you think he knew, or seriously expected, the outcome?

My first reaction was flagrant, maybe I changed my mind with the way he helped the guy to his feet after the play? I know that's not the right way to call the came, just making an observation.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by TSU2457

I'll give you that he knew that he would run into the shooter. But at the speed of the play do you think he knew, or seriously expected, the outcome?

My first reaction was flagrant, maybe I changed my mind with the way he helped the guy to his feet after the play? I know that's not the right way to call the came, just making an observation.

Flagrant? You would have thrown out the offender for that foul?

Are you a new official or perhaps not an official at all?

[TSU2457]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Flagrant? You would have thrown out the offender for that foul?

Are you a new official or perhaps not an official at all?

No, just stupid. All the drugs I have to take for my liver cancer are clogging my brain. I'll have to read this post at least four times to make sure it makes sense and then put it in word so I can correct the spelling mistakes.

I have some additional syndrome that I can't remember nouns. (Yes, it is a real thing.) From time to time I can't remember names of people I know very well. And then some words are in there but I can't get them out of the filing cabinet of the brain. So I'll use the wrong word from time to time. It's like I'm sitting here right now and can't remember the name of the brain syndrome.

I'll have to call the doctor and ask him.

[mick]

Originally Posted by TSU2457

I'll give you that he knew that he would run into the shooter. But at the speed of the play do you think he knew, or seriously expected, the outcome?

My first reaction was flagrant, maybe I changed my mind with the way he helped the guy to his feet after the play? I know that's not the right way to call the came, just making an observation.

I have no doubt the defender knew. As for helping him up, I, also, can be remorseful.
If you have millions of fans watching, you don't want a label.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by mick

I have no doubt the defender knew. As for helping him up, I, also, can be remorseful.
If you have millions of fans watching, you don't want a label.

A label? Like "cynic"? Wow.